LogFAQs > #894040882

I have no problem with another amnesty act. Reagan's amnesty act (Disclaimer: I was 14 in 1986) did not destroy the country by ultimately allowing 2.7 million (out of a possible 3 million) become citizens. If the country did not self-destruct at that point, I don't think that (for the sake of argument, I'll use the same 90% ratio for the 690K that are still on DACA) allowing 621K will destroy the country either.

In fact, with an Amnesty act, I would also include a provision that pulls INS completely out of "sanctuary City/States". The obvious pros/cons of this approach would be that the Sanctuary City/State would both reap the benefits and incur the costs of their stance. In other words, they would be solely responsible for the immigrants within their borders. (In the event that they wanted to reverse status, a reversal of status would only be accepted by the Federal Government if it were ratified through popular vote.)

For the Repubs who dislike this plan, think about this: DACA was set up the way it was so it could act as a veiled threat. "If you vote Republican, they'll take away the immigration status of you or your friends/loved ones". If you remove the boogyman threat of deportation away, you might find that the Democrats have to work much harder to get votes from the Hispanic community. (Example: while the Catholic church's influence is declining in Mexico, it is still a heavily dominant religion up to and including the pro-life stance. The same applies for First-gen immigrants.) If the Repubs could think long-term with this issue, they might actually benefit from an amnesty act.

In the end, Amnesty would be an "Everyone wins AND loses" act.....which is the hallmark of an excellent compromise. I'd be okay with that.
---

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy-Abraham Lincoln